Obama, McCain fail to Quality for Texas Ballot

[Combat Medic]

OK, I know this is old. I was just wondering if anybody has heard anything on this since it was first released?

http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/obama-mccain-fail-to-qualify-for-texas-ballot

[grondramb]

I'm pretty sure I remember the claim being disallowed without explanation - which I interpreted as there was no way Texas was gonna seriously consider the issue.

[pseudonym]

Yeah, the Libertarians were laughed out of court. I think there was a whole thread about this at the time.

[Combat Medic]

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/6018965.html

Huh. That's interesting. Denied without comment.

[grondramb]

Yeah, the Libertarians were laughed out of court. I think there was a whole thread about this at the time.

That said, it sure sounded like they had a legitimate legal point. If parties want to file in a state they would seem to have an obligation to select their candidate in time for the deadline.

[Jobeth66]

Yeah, the Libertarians were laughed out of court. I think there was a whole thread about this at the time.

That said, it sure sounded like they had a legitimate legal point. If parties want to file in a state they would seem to have an obligation to select their candidate in time for the deadline.

+1. Especially if the tables were turned, you know that the state would be likely to deny the Libertarian candidate a place on the ballot, or at least to hear the case on its merits.

[BrettStah]

My bet is that there's enough wiggle room in the laws, rules, regulations, case law, etc. that allows the Secretary of State a lot of discretion.

Regardless of the outcome of the suit, my understanding is that a write-in candidate is allowable in Texas, which likely would have meant that McCain would have won the state anyway.

[DH]

OK, I know this is old. I was just wondering if anybody has heard anything on this since it was first released?

http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/obama-mccain-fail-to-qualify-for-texas-ballot

PJ had a whole thread on it awhile back. If there is any breaking Barr news, he is usually first on the scene to report it. ;)

[bsnelson]

Well, I can say firsthand that McCain, Obama and Barr are all indeed on the ballot here in Texas. :)

Brad

[TheIndependent]

Yeah, the Libertarians were laughed out of court.

always nice to see the rule of law laughed at.

[DH]

Yeah, the Libertarians were laughed out of court.

always nice to see the rule of law laughed at.

So says George Bush and Dick Cheney

[Combat Medic]

Yeah, the Libertarians were laughed out of court.

always nice to see the rule of law laughed at.

So says George Bush and Dick Cheney

So should we just do away with the courts completely?

[JP]

Here's the statute in question:

http://law.onecle.com/texas/election/192.031.00.html
§ 192.031. PARTY CANDIDATE'S ENTITLEMENT TO PLACE ON BALLOT.

A political party is entitled to have the names of its nominees for president and vice-president of the United States placed on the ballot in a presidential general election if:

(1) the nominees possess the qualifications for those offices prescribed by federal law;

(2) before 5 p.m. of the 70th day before presidential election day, the party's state chair signs and delivers to the secretary of state a written certification of:

(A) the names of the party's nominees for president and vice-president; and

(B) the names and residence addresses of presidential elector candidates nominated by the party, in a number equal to the number of presidential electors that federal law allocates to this state; and

(3) the party is:

(A) required or authorized by Subchapter A of Chapter 172 to make its nominations by primary election; or

(B) entitled to have the names of its nominees placed on the general election ballot under Chapter 181.

Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 211, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1986. Amended by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 864, § 203, eff. Sept. 1, 1997; Acts 2005, 79th Leg., ch. 1109, § 21, eff. Sept. 1, 2005.

Now I am NOT a lawyer. I don't even like lawyer jokes. But by my reading of the plain text it doesn't say that if you miss the deadline you then CAN'T be on the ballot, it says that if you DO make the deadline (and meet the other qualifications) then the state HAS to let you on the ballot.

Actual lawyers may now tell me that I'm completely wrong, I won't take it personally. You folks gotta eat too, and if the law was this easy to understand y'all'd starve. :)

[grondramb]

But by my reading of the plain text it doesn't say that if you miss the deadline you then CAN'T be on the ballot, it says that if you DO make the deadline (and meet the other qualifications) then the state HAS to let you on the ballot.



That was my read too - I'm guessing they just decided they were not gonna let the two parties that make up 98% of the vote get left off - and that's why they offered no explanation - they are intentionally disregarding the letter of the law.

[Pablo]

Here's the statute in question:

http://law.onecle.com/texas/election/192.031.00.html
§ 192.031. PARTY CANDIDATE'S ENTITLEMENT TO PLACE ON BALLOT.

A political party is entitled to have the names of its nominees for president and vice-president of the United States placed on the ballot in a presidential general election if:

(1) the nominees possess the qualifications for those offices prescribed by federal law;

(2) before 5 p.m. of the 70th day before presidential election day, the party's state chair signs and delivers to the secretary of state a written certification of:

(A) the names of the party's nominees for president and vice-president; and

(B) the names and residence addresses of presidential elector candidates nominated by the party, in a number equal to the number of presidential electors that federal law allocates to this state; and

(3) the party is:

(A) required or authorized by Subchapter A of Chapter 172 to make its nominations by primary election; or

(B) entitled to have the names of its nominees placed on the general election ballot under Chapter 181.

Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 211, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1986. Amended by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 864, § 203, eff. Sept. 1, 1997; Acts 2005, 79th Leg., ch. 1109, § 21, eff. Sept. 1, 2005.Now I am NOT a lawyer. I don't even like lawyer jokes. But by my reading of the plain text it doesn't say that if you miss the deadline you then CAN'T be on the ballot, it says that if you DO make the deadline (and meet the other qualifications) then the state HAS to let you on the ballot.

Actual lawyers may now tell me that I'm completely wrong, I won't take it personally. You folks gotta eat too, and if the law was this easy to understand y'all'd starve. :)

It will be fun when this interpretation comes back to bite Texas.

[AJRitz]

Here's the statute in question:

http://law.onecle.com/texas/election/192.031.00.html
§ 192.031. PARTY CANDIDATE'S ENTITLEMENT TO PLACE ON BALLOT.

A political party is entitled to have the names of its nominees for president and vice-president of the United States placed on the ballot in a presidential general election if:

(1) the nominees possess the qualifications for those offices prescribed by federal law;

(2) before 5 p.m. of the 70th day before presidential election day, the party's state chair signs and delivers to the secretary of state a written certification of:

(A) the names of the party's nominees for president and vice-president; and

(B) the names and residence addresses of presidential elector candidates nominated by the party, in a number equal to the number of presidential electors that federal law allocates to this state; and

(3) the party is:

(A) required or authorized by Subchapter A of Chapter 172 to make its nominations by primary election; or

(B) entitled to have the names of its nominees placed on the general election ballot under Chapter 181.

Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 211, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1986. Amended by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 864, § 203, eff. Sept. 1, 1997; Acts 2005, 79th Leg., ch. 1109, § 21, eff. Sept. 1, 2005.Now I am NOT a lawyer. I don't even like lawyer jokes. But by my reading of the plain text it doesn't say that if you miss the deadline you then CAN'T be on the ballot, it says that if you DO make the deadline (and meet the other qualifications) then the state HAS to let you on the ballot.

Actual lawyers may now tell me that I'm completely wrong, I won't take it personally. You folks gotta eat too, and if the law was this easy to understand y'all'd starve. :)

It will be fun when this interpretation comes back to bite Texas.
There's no reason that - likely completely correct - interpretation should bite Texas in the ass. The statute sets out a pretty basic system. If a party certifies a nominee by a particular date, the state MUST put that candidate/party on the ballot. If the party doesn't meet that deadline, there's nothing in that statute that prohibits the candidate/party from being included on the ballot. The statute isn't intended to keep a major party candidate off the ballot. Rather, it is probably intended to keep the "Gay Baby Whales for Clubbing Seals" - types from littering the ballot. I suspect that an attempt to keep a major party candidate off the ballot using this statute would likely face a federal lawsuit. I don't know this area well enough to be comfortable speculating on how such a federal suit would come out.

[nataylor]

Regardless of the outcome of the suit, my understanding is that a write-in candidate is allowable in Texas, which likely would have meant that McCain would have won the state anyway.
Texas only allows "certified" write-in candidates. The certification process is different than, and has a later deadline than the process that McCain and Obama were supposed to follow. It kinda irks me that to be a write-in you have to be certified. So that means I can only vote for whoever the state tells me I can vote for. Frankly, I should be able to vote for whoever I want, and the state shouldn't be able to dictate who that is.

[Combat Medic]

Regardless of the outcome of the suit, my understanding is that a write-in candidate is allowable in Texas, which likely would have meant that McCain would have won the state anyway.
Texas only allows "certified" write-in candidates. The certification process is different than, and has a later deadline than the process that McCain and Obama were supposed to follow. It kinda irks me that to be a write-in you have to be certified. So that means I can only vote for whoever the state tells me I can vote for. Frankly, I should be able to vote for whoever I want, and the state shouldn't be able to dictate who that is.

Heck, I don't think the state should favor members of the two primary parties.

-Mike

[Pablo]

Here's the statute in question:

http://law.onecle.com/texas/election/192.031.00.html
Now I am NOT a lawyer. I don't even like lawyer jokes. But by my reading of the plain text it doesn't say that if you miss the deadline you then CAN'T be on the ballot, it says that if you DO make the deadline (and meet the other qualifications) then the state HAS to let you on the ballot.

Actual lawyers may now tell me that I'm completely wrong, I won't take it personally. You folks gotta eat too, and if the law was this easy to understand y'all'd starve. :)

It will be fun when this interpretation comes back to bite Texas.
There's no reason that - likely completely correct - interpretation should bite Texas in the ass. The statute sets out a pretty basic system. If a party certifies a nominee by a particular date, the state MUST put that candidate/party on the ballot. If the party doesn't meet that deadline, there's nothing in that statute that prohibits the candidate/party from being included on the ballot. The statute isn't intended to keep a major party candidate off the ballot. Rather, it is probably intended to keep the "Gay Baby Whales for Clubbing Seals" - types from littering the ballot. I suspect that an attempt to keep a major party candidate off the ballot using this statute would likely face a federal lawsuit. I don't know this area well enough to be comfortable speculating on how such a federal suit would come out.

I suspect that it will. When a non-major party does not meet the requirement of the law but meets the same deadlines as the major parties did, then Texas will have to put them on the ballot or face legitimate litigation. As a result, they will have to allow the "Gay Baby Whales for Clubbing Seals" party on the ballot, even when they show up late, making the law useless.

[nataylor]

Just FYI, the only candidates listed on the Texas ballot are McCain, Obama, and Barr. No Green Party, Natural Law Party, etc.